Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
Whenever the Irish started drinking. Oops, aren’t they always drinking?
GOODNESS
Talk about way out in left field!
I have a real vivid imagination and even with that it is very difficult to even
IMAGINE where such a question is coming from!
Sheesh!
God have mercy on cluelessness.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm pondering . . . .
I wonder . . . what is that phenomenon . . . toss a rock into a pack of . . . critters . . . and several not hit yelp . . . fuzzy memory on that . . .
Mad Dawg . . . Don’t some congregations give workships or seminars or some such on things like
BITTERNESS, RESENTMENTS etc? I wonder if you could hold one online—even on FR???
Of course, usually it’s those who don’t attend such things that need them most.
Oh, wrong post . . . the one about
anyone
declining to accept Almighty God’s standards, reality, choices etc.
Rant on. That was one of my more loving posts in recent months.
Quox heard from with a standard non answer. Awaiting inputs from “All” - especially the multitudes who get pinged to the non answer.
So ‘Tis often said.
Quix - not Quox.
Pretending to know the difference?
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Romans 8:28
I've lived long enough to have seen this occur time and again. Even the bleakest moments teach us, refine us, sanctify us and make us dependent on God alone.
Christianity is the only religion that really fosters a healthy mental and physical well-being. Christianity says the past and its problems no longer exist. Our sins have been forgiven and God remembers them no more. We're a new creature in Christ.
By whom?
“They”
of course!
LOL.
Later
“They”. Now I see! Thanks!
Excellent reminder. Thanks for posting.
Experimental or Theoretical?
(off-topic: so was William Hingest in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength; but Hingest was an atheist so I guess the analogy ends there).
Cheers!
Yep. At the least it falls under making it about another freeper.
Very true. And since many of us have seen how other devious human beings work over-time to control other people using all sorts of pretenses and lies to achieve that end, it behooves us all to examine what is being taught and by whom.
Islam teaches anger and slaughter. Buddhism teach nihilism and nothingness. Hinduism teaches polytheism and resignation.
Christianity is the ONLY religion that teaches men to be kind; to give of themselves; to help their fellow man; to be fruitful and multiple so more can benefit; and to be confident not only in the present but in the future.
And Christianity is the ONLY religion that teaches all this mental and physical well-being is the result, not of men's own fallible efforts, but because of God's infallible determination.
Do you know what accounts for a child's best hope for a happy, secure life as an adult? It is to know they are loved unconditionally, so that they learn to TRUST that love. Trust.
The trust of the child isn't much different than the trust of the adult. I trust God to do what He said He would do. And the evidence of that being true is that I have seen it occur in my own life and in the lives of those around me.
I am satisfied with that. To not be satisfied with love and met expectations is the definition of neurosis.
Maybe it's just that people respond more positively to them so we prefer them over just being grumpy? I mean, who wants a grump?
And that grace is repeatable because when I get up in the morning, it's there again.
Yup, there it is! But, I hate to tell you this, I have seen your posts that seem to have lost some of the meekness, love, joy, temperance, etc. (all spelled out in the NT), so as I said I often do not see these "fruits" of the Spirit in people who claim them. All one has to do is say something and they seem to evaporate real fast.
And by the way, if you read the same section that talks about the "fruits" it also says that people who do nasty things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. [Gal 5:21] And those are none other than Paul's own words! Imagine that—a works-based salvation form the pen of Apostle Paul himself!
And as far as your correction of my grammar, I'll remember your insistence that it was a benevolent act, and return the favor next time I see one of your many typographical/grammatical/clumsy finger errors.
I have no doubt that you will remember, as long as you also remember that vengeance and pride are not on the "fruits" list. But, you know what? It's mind over matter. I don't mind and you don't matter to me, and my pay is the same, so if you want to spend time and bandwidth correcting my grammar and typos, knock yourself out. You must not be too busy because I make a lot of typos, lol!
Well, "freely" and "really" are relative terms. When we Reformers make decisions we experience full freedom to make them and it is very real to us. It is the same experience for free will advocates (as I used to be one). Reformers, though, recognize the bigger picture and know that it is God who is in control of everything, and everything exists and is maintained by Him every second. That means that I will never be allowed to make a decision that thwarts the will of God. And given that God's all-controlling hand touches everything this also means that God's will is NOT that He abdicates His authority and "wills" to allow men to independently do whatever they want to do with "free will".
God's plan is immense and does not include the randomness of men's decisions. If God's plan did include such randomness it would be evidence that God does not care very much about His creation. So permitting the kind of free will that you seem to be would actually demonstrate an indifferent God rather than a loving one. A loving God takes no chances with those He loves, and does not shirk the responsibility commensurate with His act of creation.
So, while it may make us feel good as we type our original words in our posts, if we truly believe that our answers are "freely" chosen, that is, not under the control of God, then we must necessarily suppose that God does not care what our answers are. As believers we are wholly owned by God, bought with a price. Therefore to any extent an OMNIPOTENT God is not in active control of who He owns is also the extent to which God does not love who He owns.
It is only my opinion that Free Republic is a golden calf in the lives of many people.
At times, "venting" into the off-line editor represents a much-need catharsis; consequently, releasing my ire online occurs (I pray) with considerably less frequency. Frankly, a considerable amount of what I compose never gets published; last night, I "dumped" over a dozen unfinished and un-posted HTML editor texts. '-}
This morning, I was in a rush to head out for historic Jefferson, Texas, to select the exact "dig" site and lay out the archaeological grid for next week's "Summer Science Camp" "dig" for 'Gifted and Talented' 4th and 5th grade school kids.
For nearly thirty years in the 1800s, Jefferson ('way up on the frontier in the Piney Woods of northeast Texas) was Texas' second (only to Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico) largest and most important shipping port. It has changed little since then, and today is called "Bourbon Street on the Bayou" because much of its architecture and culture came from New Orleans, with which it had direct riverboat trade connections. If you are interested, there is a graphic (from my upcoming "orientation" lecture) that shows an annotated 1872 "Birds-Eye View" of Jefferson at
http://www.microlith.com/AeSDig/MiniJeffersonDigSite1872.jpg
Should you want a larger, higher resolution version, one is available at
http://www.microlith.com/AeSDig/JeffersonDigSite1872.jpg
In addition to showing the town's unique "V-shaped" two-stage development and layout, the view shows riverboat traffic on Big Cypress Bayou (including the dredge boat used for maintaining the channel and turning basin). Added are overlays highlighting the block where the dig will be, and an inset showing structures that were there in 1872 -- including the well-preserved "House of the Seasons", now serving as a museum & B&B. The green area was recently cleared of 1950s houses to be replaced by formal gardens, and the white rectangle marks the "trash dump" (with loads of "goodies") where the kids will be excavating.
~~~~~~~~~
Beyond being an excuse for sharing ;-) several of my avocational passions, (archaeology. teaching, and historic cartography) this post is also an apology for allowing time pressure to spur me into publishing in-forum (in #1517) thoughts that would better have been shared privately via FReepMail.
~~~~~~~~~
My prayer is that our interactions here in the FR religion forum will grow into mature fellowhip and sharing of insights through which God can open our eyes, minds and souls into a grander appreciation of Him, His creation, and our Lord's unspeakable gifts of sacrific and salvation!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
